Discuss: The Open-Source Milestone Application Framewor

Forrest J. Cavalier III mibsoft at mibsoftware.com
Mon Apr 29 11:58:11 UTC 2002

"Akil Franklin" <afranklin at techMilestone.com> wrote:

> Article 7 is basically meant to ensure that the authors of the framework
> are notified when it is used (i.e. placed into a production system
> either modified or not). Again, the goal is the sharing of information.
> Perhaps the following would be better:
> 7. Milestone must be notified when this product is placed into a
> production system (either modified or not). Such notification can be
> made by visiting www.techMilestone.com and filling out the appropriate
> online form. If you have any questions about this process, please send
> an email to MAFAdmin at techMilestone.com.
> Better?

I don't think it is better.  

Notifying a specific entity requires that the entity exists.  This
may not be the case in 10 years, or next week (which is not an
insult, just a statement of the risk that an adopter will recognize.)

Secondly, requiring a specific method of notification requires that
the method is available.  This could allow the licensor to control
who can use the method, which is a clear OSD violation.

For community philosophy on this point, you can read what Bruce
Perens et al. wrote about the APSL 1.0 clause 2.2(c) at.


As you can see in the APSL version 1.2, clause 2.2(c) does not
have the same problem.

license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3

More information about the License-discuss mailing list